Dataset Information

Comparison of Proteomic Assessment Methods in Multiple Cohort Studies.

ABSTRACT: Novel proteomics platforms, such as the aptamer-based SOMAscan platform, can quantify large numbers of proteins efficiently and cost-effectively and are rapidly growing in popularity. However, comparisons to conventional immunoassays remain underexplored, leaving investigators unsure when cross-assay comparisons are appropriate. The correlation of results from immunoassays with relative protein quantification is explored by SOMAscan. For 63 proteins assessed in two chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cohorts, subpopulations and intermediate outcome measures in COPD Study (SPIROMICS), and COPDGene, using myriad rules based medicine multiplex immunoassays and SOMAscan, Spearman correlation coefficients range from -0.13 to 0.97, with a median correlation coefficient of ≈0.5 and consistent results across cohorts. A similar range is observed for immunoassays in the population-based Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis and for other assays in COPDGene and SPIROMICS. Comparisons of relative quantification from the antibody-based Olink platform and SOMAscan in a small cohort of myocardial infarction patients also show a wide correlation range. Finally, cis pQTL data, mass spectrometry aptamer confirmation, and other publicly available data are integrated to assess relationships with observed correlations. Correlation between proteomics assays shows a wide range and should be carefully considered when comparing and meta-analyzing proteomics data across assays and studies.

SUBMITTER: Raffield LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7425176 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Proteomic Assessment Methods in Multiple Cohort Studies.

Raffield Laura M LM Dang Hong H Pratte Katherine A KA Jacobson Sean S Gillenwater Lucas A LA Ampleford Elizabeth E Barjaktarevic Igor I Basta Patricia P Clish Clary B CB Comellas Alejandro P AP Cornell Elaine E Curtis Jeffrey L JL Doerschuk Claire C Durda Peter P Emson Claire C Freeman Christine M CM Guo Xiuqing X Hastie Annette T AT Hawkins Gregory A GA Herrera Julio J Johnson W Craig WC Labaki Wassim W WW Liu Yongmei Y Masters Brett B Miller Michael M Ortega Victor E VE Papanicolaou George G Peters Stephen S Taylor Kent D KD Rich Stephen S SS Rotter Jerome I JI Auer Paul P Reiner Alex P AP Tracy Russell P RP Ngo Debby D Gerszten Robert E RE O'Neal Wanda K WK Bowler Russell P RP

Proteomics 20200601 12

Novel proteomics platforms, such as the aptamer-based SOMAscan platform, can quantify large numbers of proteins efficiently and cost-effectively and are rapidly growing in popularity. However, comparisons to conventional immunoassays remain underexplored, leaving investigators unsure when cross-assay comparisons are appropriate. The correlation of results from immunoassays with relative protein quantification is explored by SOMAscan. For 63 proteins assessed in two chronic obstructive pulmonary ...[more]

PMID: 32386347

Similar Datasets

Project description:Epidemiologic studies use various biosample collection methods to study associations between human oral microbiota and health outcomes. However, the agreement between the different methods is unclear. We compared a commercially available OMNIgene ORAL kit to three alternative collection methods: Saccomanno's fixative, Scope mouthwash, and nonethanol mouthwash. Oral samples were collected from 40 individuals over 4 visits. Two samples were collected from each subject per visit: one with OMNIgene and one with an alternative method. DNA was extracted using the DSP DNA Virus Pathogen kit, and the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene was PCR amplified and sequenced using MiSeq. Oral collection methods were compared based on alpha and beta diversity metrics and phylum- and genus-level relative abundances. All alpha diversity metrics were significantly lower for Saccomanno's fixative than for OMNIgene (P < 0.001), whereas the two mouthwashes were more similar to OMNIgene. Principal-coordinate analysis (PCoA) using the Bray-Curtis and weighted UniFrac beta diversity matrices showed large differences in the microbial compositions of samples collected with Saccomanno's compared to those with OMNIgene and the mouthwashes. Clustering by collection method was not observed in unweighted UniFrac PCoA plots, suggesting differences in relative abundances but not specific taxa detected by the collection methods. Relative abundances of most taxa were significantly different between OMNIgene and the other methods at each taxonomic level, with Saccomanno's showing the least agreement with OMNIgene. There were clear differences in oral microbial communities between the four oral collection methods, particularly for Saccomanno's fixative.IMPORTANCE We compared four different oral collection methods for studying the human oral microbiome: an OMNIgene ORAL kit, Scope mouthwash, nonethanol mouthwash, and Saccomanno's fixative. Our study shows that the type of the collection method can have a large impact on the results of an oral microbiome analysis. We recommend that one consistent oral collection method should be used for all oral microbiome comparisons. While Scope and nonethanol mouthwashes are less expensive and provide results similar to those with OMNIgene, Saccomanno's fixative may be unfavorable due to the microbial differences detected in this study. Our results will help guide the design of future oral microbiome studies.

Project description:For ex vivo measurements of fracture callus stiffness in small animals, different test methods, such as torsion or bending tests, are established. Each method provides advantages and disadvantages, and it is still debated which of those is most sensitive to experimental conditions (i.e. specimen alignment, directional dependency, asymmetric behavior). The aim of this study was to experimentally compare six different testing methods regarding their robustness against experimental errors. Therefore, standardized specimens were created by selective laser sintering (SLS), mimicking size, directional behavior, and embedding variations of respective rat long bone specimens. For the latter, five different geometries were created which show shifted or tilted specimen alignments. The mechanical tests included three-point bending, four-point bending, cantilever bending, axial compression, constrained torsion, and unconstrained torsion. All three different bending tests showed the same principal behavior. They were highly dependent on the rotational direction of the maximum fracture callus expansion relative to the loading direction (creating experimental errors of more than 60%), however small angular deviations (<15°) were negligible. Differences in the experimental results between the bending tests originate in their respective location of maximal bending moment induction. Compared to four-point bending, three-point bending is easier to apply on small rat and mouse bones under realistic testing conditions and yields robust measurements, provided low variation of the callus shape among the tested specimens. Axial compressive testing was highly sensitive to embedding variations, and therefore cannot be recommended. Although it is experimentally difficult to realize, unconstrained torsion testing was found to be the most robust method, since it was independent of both rotational alignment and embedding uncertainties. Constrained torsional testing showed small errors (up to 16.8%, compared to corresponding alignment under unconstrained torsion) due to a parallel offset between the specimens' axis of gravity and the torsional axis of rotation.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Proteomic Assessment Methods in Multiple Cohort Studies.

Publications

Comparison of Proteomic Assessment Methods in Multiple Cohort Studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets